[Page: S4137]---
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, once again, the principal reason I have sought recognition has been to comment on my ``no'' vote on the farm bill, which was passed yesterday. Even though there are some parts of the farm bill which I liked, I have, on balance, decided to vote ``No'' because of the excessive cost which favors big corporate farmers and provides unreasonable subsidies to cotton, soybean, wheat, rice and corn.
When I voted for the farm bill in the Senate, the cost was $73.5 billion over current spending for farm programs. However, the conference report came in at $82.8 billion for a total of approximately $190 billion total over 10 years which is, simply stated, far too expensive. The United States no longer enjoys a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. In fact, there is a deficit of $130 billion expected by the end of this fiscal year.
Projecting the costs of this farm bill, it may be necessary to invade the Social Security trust fund, probably abandon plans for adequate prescription drugs for senior citizens and encroach on necessary appropriations for many priority items, including defense, education and health care. When I chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, Health & Human Services and Education, and now in my capacity as ranking member, I have seen the great need for funding for the National Institutes of Health and other health programs as well as education and worker safety. Without enumerating many other programs, there are obviously high priorities which will be impacted by the costs of this Farm Bill.
I am especially concerned about payments to large corporate farmers. The distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar, has stated that more than $100 billion will go to farm subsidy payments over the next 10 years, with two-thirds of payments going to just 10 percent of the largest farmers who grow primarily corn, soybean, wheat, rice and cotton. This policy will likely encourage further market concentration.
This bill encourages over-production with the resultant consequence of yet lower prices leading to more subsidies. This Bill will further have an adverse impact on international trade by providing expanded and unpredictable levels of support, which increase the likelihood that the United States might breech the farm subsidy limitations it agreed to in the 1994 world trade agreements. Further, the bill's expanded supports have caused our trading partners to question our sincerity on future reductions in farm spending.
There are some portions of the bill which I favor, such as the new national dairy program, expanded Food Stamp Program, including providing food stamps to legal immigrants, and the many positive environmental and conservation measures that are very effective in Pennsylvania. I am pleased to see the new national dairy program, but it falls short of the proper legislation which is embodied in my bill, S. 1157, which would create permanent dairy compacts in the Northeast, as well as the South, Northwest and Inter-Mountain regions. While the dairy provisions will be of help, Congress is missing an opportunity to create a long-term dairy policy through the compacts which would have no cost to the taxpayers.
END